> I think an important factor in changing public opinion has
> been the liberal and alternative media. DailyKos, like Nathan
> points out, and the Nation, Air America, Michael Moore,
> liberal blogs and so on. Less noticed, but still getting the
> word out to the masses has been the alternative media: radio,
> blogs, Indymedia, radical magazines, news sites, discussion
> lists, and so on. And the mainstream media has been a factor
> too, merely in reporting the situation in Iraq, however filtered.
>
> The liberal/left and alternative media have provided a
> consistent voice of opposition to the war. The right wing has
> helped too, by trying to demonize the left/liberal media.
> Even when you are dissing something, you draw attention to
> it. Like Michael Moore, who became a household name because
> of rabid right wing hatred of the guy. He did his part by
> producing several good movies that were critical of Bush.
>
> I still think that activism and dissent can have an effect in
> changing public opinion, but that's not going to happen when
> activists cling tightly to bad ideas ("we must protest like
> we did in the 1960s", and, "we have to be nonviolent") or bad
> organizations. The worst thing activists could do is to pat
> themselves on their backs and say that "our protests stopped
> the war" or "our protests changed public opinion."
Ditto! I would not dismiss them, for every contribution to the cause counts, no matter how little, but I would not hold my breath either. I think their web page and their manifesto are awfully mushy and have zero appeal to anyone but the already converted. For one thing, it is very negative, we oppose this, we are against that, which inevitably begs the question "so what is it that you are for? Can you be a bit more constructive?" I think that by being mostly "against," they shoot themselves in the foot and cede ground to conservatives.
As I understand the conservative mindset, it is not for Bush, for life, or for anything else. It is primarily against its demons - the urban liberals, secular humanists, big gummint, foreigners and "them" in general. For the conservative mind, the only use value of the likes like Bush, fundie x-tians, is basically the same as that of shock jocks or attack dogs like Limbaugh or O'Reiily - kick ass of the demons the conservative mind hates.
If you listen to self-professed conservatives you will notice that they may go to church but they never talk about religion, theology, spirituality and other mushy stuff religions are made of. They may vote Republican and call themselves conservative, but they have no clue what conservative political philosophies stand for, let alone non-conservative ones. All they talk about is their hatred of "liberal elites" without even knowing who those elites are and what they stand for. In their little pea-brains, "liberal elite" is the code word for "demon" "satan" or "evil incarnate" and they will rally behind anyone who attacks that evil. That is why the conservative mind may think Rush Limbaugh is a fat stupid junkie, Bush lied and screwed up in Iraq, O'Reilly is a nasty asshole, George Will is a stuffed shirt - but it will still rally behind these luminaries of conservative thought as long as they "kick ass" of the "liberal demons."
Pundits and politicians pandering to the conservative mind understand that quite well and what they say and publish may not make sense at all from an objective or scientific point of view, but it has one quality that is appealing to the conservative mid - it pisses off liberals and other demons of the conservative mind. In fact, if the liberals get upset by or attack the nonse spewed by "luminaries" like Bush,Will, Limbaugh or O'Reilly that only adds further value to that nonse for the conservative mind. It is a clear sign that the "arrows" are hurting the demons, and that is all that counts.
So if conservatism is essentially an ideology of negativism and being against demons and evil, the mushy liberal program "we oppose this or that" cannot really compete with the fierce fire and brimstone negativity that conservatives deliver. If liberals want to compete, they should offer an alternative and be "for" something for a change. They should stop being against war, violence, inequality, poverty, imperialism and other bad stuff, and instead be for something postive that most people can envision and identify with - like universal health care, living wage, affordable housing, clean and safe neigborhoods, international institutions etc. Take a clue from the Catholics - they are not "against abortion," they are "for life."
Wojtek